On February 20, the pro-government TV channel POSTV’s program “Eurocracy” discussed the funding of Western media by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). In a report titled “The Dark Side of USAID,” journalist Data Gvasalia claimed that USAID had paid millions of dollars to media outlets such as Politico, BBC, The New York Times, and Associated Press. The report also discussed Ukrainian media, stating that nine out of 10 media outlets in Ukraine were funded by USAID and that after foreign aid was suspended, they faced the threat of closure. Gvasalia presented these statistics to argue that media in the West and the U.S. is not free and that the previous U.S. administration attempted to control it through USAID funding.
A Facebook user also shared the “Eurocracy” episode.
The “Eurocracy” program on POSTV spreads false and manipulative claims regarding USAID’s funding of Western media: 1) USAID did not grant funding to Politico. In reality, USAID paid $44,000 for a subscription to the premium version of the outlet, POLITICO Pro. Government agencies primarily paid The New York Times for subscriptions; 2) The funding was not received by the BBC but by the organization BBC Media Action, which is independent of the television network in terms of leadership and funding; 3) Associated Press has received funds from U.S. government agencies for years, but it has never been granted funding by USAID. 4) Many media outlets operating in Ukraine receive funding from international donors, including USAID. However, the claim that 90% of Ukrainian media is dependent on USAID funding is incorrect. Local research shows that the number of Ukrainian media outlets fully reliant on USAID funding is much lower.
Discussions about USAID’s activities intensified after President Donald Trump decided to suspend all U.S. foreign aid for 90 days. The decision, along with posts by Elon Musk, head of the Department of Government Efficiency, sparked several conspiracy theories. Fact-checking of misinformation was further complicated by the fact that USAID’s website is currently unavailable.
-
Did USAID Fund American and British Media?
In the TV program Eurocracy, the journalist claimed that last year, USAID was the second-largest donor to the BBC. To support this claim, the program presented a post from platform X containing a diagram that included funds allocated by USAID – more than £2.5 million. In reality, this funding did not go to the British television network BBC. During the 2023-2024 period, USAID did not allocate £2.613 million to the broadcaster; instead, the funds were directed to BBC Media Action. BBC Media Action is an independent organization separate from the BBC, carrying out global projects to support the development of impartial, influential, and reliable media. The diagram shown in Eurocracy originates from BBC Media Action’s annual financial report. The funding review section of the report (p. 40) presents a diagram listing the top 10 donors for 2023-2024, which includes USAID. Additionally, BBC Media Action also received funding from the U.S. State Department (p. 41).
After false claims about the organization spread, BBC Media Action’s Chief Executive Officer issued a statement clarifying that the organization’s funding, as well as leadership, are entirely separate from those of the BBC and that giving grants to the organization does not mean funding the BBC. He also noted that USAID’s funding accounted for only 8% of the organization’s total budget last year.
The BBC itself is funded through the UK budget, and its financial report for the last year does not mention receiving any funding from USAID.
False claims were also spread regarding the U.S. political news outlet POLITICO. Journalist Data Gvasalia stated that the media outlet had received $34 million from USAID. The U.S. federal assistance database provides information on funding allocations since 2008. The allocated funding to POLITICO was $8.1 million last year, while this year, the media outlet was given $1 million (All Fiscal Years). The state paid the largest portion – $4.42 million – on POLITICO’s periodicals and newspapers. Additionally, there are two contracts between USAID and POLITICO signed in 2023 and 2024, specifically for website subscriptions. The total contract value is $44,000. POLITICO also operates POLITICO Pro, a premium version of its platform. POLITICO responded to the accusations with a joint statement from its CEO and Editor-in-Chief, stating that the company is privately owned and has not received government funding for the past 18 years and that USAID only paid for their premium version platform.
POSTV has also alleged that USAID provided over $19 million to the American media outlet Associated Press (AP). However, a search on the U.S. government’s aid website reveals that no contracts exist between USAID and AP, and the media outlet has not received grants or financial support from the agency since 2008. However, AP has received over $37 million (All Fiscal Years) from various U.S. government agencies over the years, including before the Biden administration.
No contracts between The New York Times and USAID can be found on the USA Spending database either. However, like other media outlets, The New York Times has received funds from the U.S. government. Most of the $2.4 million it received was spent on subscriptions and print editions (All Fiscal Years). Despite this, POSTV claimed that the media outlet received up to $50 million.
-
Are Nine Out of Ten Ukrainian Media Outlets Funded by USAID?
The “Eurocracy” report claimed that nine out of 10 media outlets in Ukraine were funded by USAID. The journalist linked this to “deep state control over the media.” The source of this claim is Lindsay Penney, an X (formerly Twitter) user known for her online activity. There is little publicly available information about her in open sources. In her social media bio, she describes herself as a free speech expert. Penney appeared on the “Tim Pool” podcast, where she discussed USAID’s funding of Ukrainian media and introduced herself as an investigative journalist. However, it remains unclear which media outlet she works for or what topics she investigates. In the podcast (at the 17:00 mark), she stated that nine out of 10 traditional media outlets in Ukraine are funded by USAID. The Ukrainian verification platform StopFake fact-checked a similar claim and categorized it as manipulation.
A similar statement about Western funding of Ukrainian media was initially published by Reporters Without Borders (RSF). The organization wrote, “In Ukraine, where 9 out of 10 outlets rely on subsidies and USAID is the primary donor, several local media have already announced the suspension of their activities and are searching for alternative solutions.” Later, RSF corrected the article, stating that 9 out of 10 Ukrainian media outlets receive international funding, with USAID being one of the main donors. The organization clarified the misunderstanding, emphasizing that this did not mean 90% of Ukrainian media were entirely dependent on USAID funding.
RSF based its claim on a statement from Oksana Romaniuk, director of Ukraine’s Institute of Mass Information. Romaniuk said, “90% of Ukrainian media survived thanks to grants.” She also said that while the U.S. was a key donor for many media outlets, European funds also played a significant role and expressed hope that European institutions would take the lead in supporting Ukrainian media.
At the beginning of February, the Institute of Mass Information published a study assessing the impact of halted U.S. aid on media organizations. The study found that only 35% of media outlets reported being dependent on American grants for more than 75% of their funding. However, the research did not specify the exact share of USAID funding.
Recently, misleading claims about USAID grants have repeatedly circulated. Some actors attempt to portray the agency’s funding as wasteful and criticize the agency for funding inappropriate projects in developing countries. Myth Detector continues to systematically verify such questionable claims.
The article has been written in the framework of Facebook’s fact-checking program. You can read more about the restrictions that Facebook may impose based on this article via this link. You can find information about appealing or editing our assessment via this link.
Read detailed instructions for editing the article.
Read detailed appeal instructions.
